What's the Rush?

IMAGINE a policy that would replace Harvard's 12 distinct houses with bland dormitories--colorless places to live. Imagine a policy that would eliminate a student's right to express a preference for where he or she will live for three years.

Now, imagine a room full of moralistic upperclass students telling first-year students that this is the policy they support. Meet the staff of The Crimson.

By supporting 100 percent randomization, the editors believe they are taking a bold, controversial stand. They pat themselves on the back for ignoring student opinion and avoiding a "political" compromise. They feel that the issue of diversity is so serious, so urgent, that further discussion of the options is unnecessary.

The editors would rather plunge passionately into a policy whose effects have barely been examined. The editors, most of them secure in the houses of their choice, are calling for full randomization of first-year students.

The editors are wrong.

THERE is a problem with lack of diversity in some houses. But how extensive is the problem really and how many houses are actually suffering? Do we really need such a drastic measure as full randomization to solve the problem? Using full randomization to solve Harvard's diversity problems is like using a nuclear bomb to exterminate an ant.

Although a few houses may have problems with diversity, a Harvard student's daily interactions are not limited to the house. They experience the diversity of the University in a variety of courses and extracurricular activities.

To categorize students as athletes, musicians, or private school graduates is an insult to the individuality of each student.

In addition, the editors seem to feel that stereotypes play the major role in a student's decision to live in a particular house. They ignore the differences in special facilities, location, room size and architecture.

These are all legitimate reasons why a student should be entitled to express a preference, if not to make a definite choice.

Furthermore, there is no evidence that full randomization would have favorable results. One needs only to examine Yale's sorry system of boring, lifeless residential colleges. There is something to be said for the distinct character of Harvard's houses.

The editors have taken an "all or nothing" approach to the lottery issue. By doing so, they fail to realize that the 100 percent randomization will have a dramatic impact on the first group of students involved. A gradual transition and careful tinkering seem more logical, and perhaps more appropriate for such a minor problem.

Although I share the staff's reservations about non-ordered choice, I think the proposal at least merits further examination. To dismiss the widely-supported compromise as merely "political" accomplishes nothing. Perhaps Dean of the College L. Fred Jewett '57 will maintain the status quo this year but ask students to fill out an additional non-ordered choice form this spring to use as valid data.

In any event, rapid implementation of a 100 percent randomization scheme without careful analysis is the worst possible route to follow.